Is Oracle's SYS_GUID() UUID RFC 4122 compliant?

user_819028 0
Viewed 20554

I wonder if Oracle's SYS_GUID() function returns a RFC 4122 compliant UUID. For example:

SQL> select sys_guid() from dual;

SYS_GUID()
--------------------------------
A6C1BD5167C366C6E04400144FD25BA0

I know, that SYS_GUID() returns a 16 byte RAW datatype. Oracle uses RAWTOHEX() and probably TO_CHAR() to print out the above ID. Is it correct to interpret this as a UUID compliant string format like:

A6C1BD51-67C3-66C6-E044-00144FD25BA0

I think it's not compliant to the RFC 4122 standard, because the definition says, that a valid UUID must name the UUID-Version within the UUID itself.

Syntax for a RFC 4122 compliant UUID (Version 3):

xxxxxxxx-xxxx-3xxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx
rfc uuid oracle
4 Answers

RFC 4122 § 3. Namespace Registration Template (Page 5)

Validation mechanism:
Apart from determining whether the timestamp portion of the UUID
is in the future and therefore not yet assignable, there is no
mechanism for determining whether a UUID is 'valid'.

It is the generation process that determines "compliance" with RFC 4122, the UUID itself is just a 128 bit IDentifier.

Therefore the answer is yes, why would it not be compliant? A UUID is just an 128 bit Universaly Unique IDentifier, the rest of the spec is just recommended ways to help you/Oracle generate identifiers that do not collide with other systems that generate U.U. IDentifiers. If you or Oracle do not want to follow their recommendations, they are free to do so. Regardless, the uuid you gave is "in compliance" with RFC 4122 as the variant field starts with the bit sequence 111 which is "Reserved for future definition.". The spec was written in the past and does not restrict who can specify a "future definition", it certainly does not prevent Oracle from defining their own variants... therefore it is "in compliance"... lol.

p.s. I love how the original authors anticipated your question and added sarcasm quotes around 'valid'.

user_128021100
Related